You KNOW what I meant by "motion detector" as not any device that could detect motion, but a motion detector like depicted in Aliens or CoD. It is NOT the same technology as it is NOT capable of

A computer in 1912 like I am using today WOULD be fantasy. Just because there was an electronic counting machine in 1912 (the bare basic principal of a computer) that doesn't mean you can have an AMD quad-core PC which can run Crysis exists in 1912.

No I didn't. You said something very particular and I am holding you to that. Motion sensors do not, nor would, work even remotely similar to a theoretical heart beat sensor. One relies on transfers of kinetic energy, the other on detecting subtle sounds and/or electrical discharges.

I'm not going to do your research for you. A few posts ago I would have, but you've shown incapable of doing so on your own and as such I think it would be good practice to do so. I'll give you a head start, research, NOT GOOGLE, Tomographic Detector. It is a motion sensor technology that uses radiowaves, which can penetrate, and be read, through solid matter. They have been used in motion sensor technology, as prototypes, since the 1970's, and for military uses, while never fully acknowledged, (and presenting a definitive example would be illegal as a breach of OPSEC for users of it), have been both alluded too and line items shown in military spending budgets.

Also the HK416 is a direct derivative of the M16. The M16 also being invented in the 19*50's*, the prototype AR-15 being acquired by Armalite in 1959. The HK416 is the logical evolution of that weapon, moving from bare chamber gas impingement, to chrome plating, to assisted piston impingement, to full on gas piston in a factory made package. The current HK416 is lighyears ahead, yet strikingly similar to, the original AR-15. It is it's evolved form. To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy. As the M16 went out of service in about 1970-ish (replaced by the M16A1 and later M16A2) to not acknowledge that technology evolves over time is to deny the basis of SCIENCE in general.

RC1138:Straw man means, in essence, to avoid the argument and make an unrelated counterpoint. Citing anecdotal evidence is literally just that; "I heard this happened one time so I'm right."

And now you're proving you cannot read. I said in the hierarchy of needs, in what is most of concern amongst soldiers, what is stressed as a problem. Those same exist in the regular world.

For example, are you concerned about an asteroid coming down and striking you in the head. No, of course not. Can it happen? Absolutely. It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment. Do you concern yourself with that? No. Which would you rate as a higher concern, being struck by a drunk driver, or an errant meteor? Also, when walking down the street at 12:30 at night, which is likely to enter your brain as a genuine concern? So it is not a false dichotomy, it is 100% relevant. We don't actively concern ourselves with that, not because it's unimportant, or even unlikely, but because there are in fact *FAR* greater concerns at hand. It would be wasted mental potential to focus on that then say, whether or not they have mortars targeting your position, or if support fire will be necessary.

Also if you are going to gloss over or not bear in mind that soldiers rape each other with *absolutely FRIGHTENING consistency* you are REALLY out of touch with the real world. You need to come out of your shell and see the real world, not the world that's been painted for you.

There are more rapes in the U.S. Army alone per year than some states per year. Bear in mind, I'll repeat it again, I was an MP, it is my prerogative to be VERY aware of crime statistics and common criminal behaviors within the military, rape and sexual assault (and harassment) are, in my opinion, the most common crimes in the U.S. Army. Drug use isn't that common as the number of mandated drug screenings are numerous, violence against each other is part of the job (combat sparring and training) so it's tough decide when it's a "crime" or not but it's not that common nonetheless. Article 92's might be the only more common crime and that's only because of the catch-all application of Article 92 (can be used for damn near anything).

To even suggest that *friendly fire* is brought up as a concern more than *rape* in the U.S. Army just goes to show you know nothing about this subject.

No. Straw man means (and this is easy to look up) is to misrepresent your opponents argument as being something out as something easy to attack, i.e. make a straw man and beat that rather than the argument itself.

It's hyperbole to bring up asteroid impacts,

"It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment." Not very good maths, 100% possible means "certain" in "5% possible" is low possibility.

I consider it a pretty high probability that I might be killed if everyone is walking around with an "itchy trigger finger" that is an incentive to be the first person to shoot. When Pat Tillman died to friendly fire there was no enemy gunfire present, only US firearms. They somehow didn't distinguish from AK47 fire.

People know if they are going to kill themselves, they often do so because they decide to, it's not like their arm gets possessed. But people don't know if their ally is going to shoot them and unlike the enemy shooting at them, shooting back is not a solution.

It's like saying that Afghan infiltrators murdering the odd soldier in their base is not a major concern because only half a dozen have died while hundreds have committed suicide. You are ignoring the anguish anyone dying like that can cause.

The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?

Final Rank (Cadet (West Point thing) but for all intents and purposes I served as a SSG in the U.S. Army, 18th MP Brigade, usually attached to the 10th Mountain. Was Stationed all over the world but spent the greatest amount of time in Sembach (Germany) and Ft. Drum (NY, USA). You could no sooner corroborate or confirm it as due to my job (MP) and my duties, most of what I did is classified, not that I saw anything interesting or did anything interesting, but I was in charge of gathering evidence in Criminal Cases as well as possibly guarding facilities or personal, identities which are top secret, any viewing of my U.S. Army file, without the authority of a Federal Judge, is a Federal Crime (something that crosses boards, I might add, as it could, in theory, compromise OPSEC).

And I said 240Bravo because that's what it's called. If you think there's a difference between writing 240Bravo and "Two Forty Bravo" for other than saving a few characters you're reaching. If you're reaching that far for things, well, like I said this is starting to pass from mildly annoying to full blown funny.

You KNOW what I meant by "motion detector" as not any device that could detect motion, but a motion detector like depicted in Aliens or CoD. It is NOT the same technology as it is NOT capable of

A computer in 1912 like I am using today WOULD be fantasy. Just because there was an electronic counting machine in 1912 (the bare basic principal of a computer) that doesn't mean you can have an AMD quad-core PC which can run Crysis exists in 1912.

No I didn't. You said something very particular and I am holding you to that. Motion sensors do not, nor would, work even remotely similar to a theoretical heart beat sensor. One relies on transfers of kinetic energy, the other on detecting subtle sounds and/or electrical discharges.

I'm not going to do your research for you. A few posts ago I would have, but you've shown incapable of doing so on your own and as such I think it would be good practice to do so. I'll give you a head start, research, NOT GOOGLE, Tomographic Detector. It is a motion sensor technology that uses radiowaves, which can penetrate, and be read, through solid matter. They have been used in motion sensor technology, as prototypes, since the 1970's, and for military uses, while never fully acknowledged, (and presenting a definitive example would be illegal as a breach of OPSEC for users of it), have been both alluded too and line items shown in military spending budgets.

Also the HK416 is a direct derivative of the M16. The M16 also being invented in the 19*50's*, the prototype AR-15 being acquired by Armalite in 1959. The HK416 is the logical evolution of that weapon, moving from bare chamber gas impingement, to chrome plating, to assisted piston impingement, to full on gas piston in a factory made package. The current HK416 is lighyears ahead, yet strikingly similar to, the original AR-15. It is it's evolved form. To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy. As the M16 went out of service in about 1970-ish (replaced by the M16A1 and later M16A2) to not acknowledge that technology evolves over time is to deny the basis of SCIENCE in general.

You just said, in the SAME REPLYING QUOTE you were talking about SPECIFICALLY the heartbeat sensors in Modern Warfare 2.

Tomographic Detector is still not compatible with the Hearbeat Sensor of CoD or Motion Tracker of Aliens.

HK416 is hardly relevant, it is very similar in capability, slight change in reliability

"To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy."

Which is not what I said.

Are you really going to be anal enough to say it's wrong to call an M16A2 or M16A4 as simply an "M16"?!?!? This is NOT denying that technology changes over time, this is you being pedantic.

No. Straw man means (and this is easy to look up) is to misrepresent your opponents argument as being something out as something easy to attack, i.e. make a straw man and beat that rather than the argument itself.

It's hyperbole to bring up asteroid impacts,

"It is 100% possible to happen at any given moment." Not very good maths, 100% possible means "certain" in "5% possible" is low possibility.

I consider it a pretty high probability that I might be killed if everyone is walking around with an "itchy trigger finger" that is an incentive to be the first person to shoot. When Pat Tillman died to friendly fire there was no enemy gunfire present, only US firearms. They somehow didn't distinguish from AK47 fire.

People know if they are going to kill themselves, they often do so because they decide to, it's not like their arm gets possessed. But people don't know if their ally is going to shoot them and unlike the enemy shooting at them, shooting back is not a solution.

It's like saying that Afghan infiltrators murdering the odd soldier in their base is not a major concern because only half a dozen have died while hundreds have committed suicide. You are ignoring the anguish anyone dying like that can cause.

The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?

You know arguing semantics is a sure sign a person knows their wrong. Straw Man. But I can play too, this is starting to be fun, 100% possible means it is a guarantee it is POSSIBLE. If I had said 100% going to happen, that means it's guaranteed TO happen, 5% going to happen, means 5% of the time it's going to happen. 100% possible means it's guaranteed possible to happen, but not guaranteed to happen. When dealing with "possible" something cannot be 5%, or 15% or anything other than 100% or 0%. It either CAN happen, or CAN'T happen. 1 or 0, yes or no.

Is English your first language? Because I'm starting to question that. Your profile says England (Great Britain rather) but that could mean anything about your language.

"The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?"

Yes, they should. I would be. And that's from a soldier, something *you* are not. Because statistically rapes happen more often (INCLUDING MALE SOLDIERS) than friendly fire. It's not hyperbole, it's fact.

You just said, in the SAME REPLYING QUOTE you were talking about SPECIFICALLY the heartbeat sensors in Modern Warfare 2.

Tomographic Detector is still not compatible with the Hearbeat Sensor of CoD or Motion Tracker of Aliens.

HK416 is hardly relevant, it is very similar in capability, slight change in reliability

"To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy."

Which is not what I said.

Are you really going to be anal enough to say it's wrong to call an M16A2 or M16A4 as simply an "M16"?!?!? This is NOT denying that technology changes over time, this is you being pedantic.

No, I said Motion sensors, because you brought up Alien, which uses Motion sensors. You then decided, after that, that you meant *heartbeat* sensors from COD. Fine. That technology doesn't exist now, nor will ever in all likelihood. Not for lack of ability but because others would be better.

Tomographic Detector are not comparable to heartbeat sensors (at least in mechanize, the output could be identical pending on how it's programed), I never said they were, but they *are* comparable to the type of technology shown in Alien. Not all Tomographic Detector work with a structural mesh. If you looked that up, more than typing it into google or Wikipedia, you'd know that. There are military versions that, while not firearms mounted, are man portable and can be pointed at a solid wall to determine movement and numbers of individual moving objects within a room. It's essentially a radar detector , rather looking for where radar waves are not, and tracking the motion of where the radar waves are being interpreted, and with clever computing, develop an output to show where people or objects are moving within.

If that's not a motion detector then I don't know what is. Are you saying it has to be a PARTICULAR method of squiring data to be a "true" motion detector. Cause now you're just being silly.

Also the HK416 is identical except for two things, piston instead of direct impingement, a slightly different barrel design.

"The US army is more populous than many US states. But are you seriously saying that mothers should be more worried about their sons being deliberately raped by one of their own comrades than being accidentally injured when everyone is wandering around with automatic weapons and high explosives?"

Yes, they should. I would be. And that's from a soldier, something *you* are not. Because statistically rapes happen more often (INCLUDING MALE SOLDIERS) than friendly fire. It's not hyperbole, it's fact.

Maybe you do need more women in the army if rape is that prevalent. The point is friendly fire is a kind of inherent likelihood for how a moments lapse can kill, but it takes incredible pre-meditation and malicious drive to rape and impossible to avoid culpability.

Maybe the military could do with more females for how females rape less. Not at all, but much less.

PS:"You know arguing semantics is a sure sign a person knows their wrong.""Is English your first language? "

You just said, in the SAME REPLYING QUOTE you were talking about SPECIFICALLY the heartbeat sensors in Modern Warfare 2.

Tomographic Detector is still not compatible with the Hearbeat Sensor of CoD or Motion Tracker of Aliens.

HK416 is hardly relevant, it is very similar in capability, slight change in reliability

"To say that the M16 did not exist until now, simply because the HK416 is the evolved form, is lunacy."

Which is not what I said.

Are you really going to be anal enough to say it's wrong to call an M16A2 or M16A4 as simply an "M16"?!?!? This is NOT denying that technology changes over time, this is you being pedantic.

No, I said Motion sensors, because you brought up Alien, which uses Motion sensors. You then decided, after that, that you meant *heartbeat* sensors from COD. Fine. That technology doesn't exist now, nor will ever in all likelihood. Not for lack of ability but because others would be better.

Tomographic Detector are not comparable to heartbeat sensors (at least in mechanize, the output could be identical pending on how it's programed), I never said they were, but they *are* comparable to the type of technology shown in Alien. Not all Tomographic Detector work with a structural mesh. If you looked that up, more than typing it into google or Wikipedia, you'd know that. There are military versions that, while not firearms mounted, are man portable and can be pointed at a solid wall to determine movement and numbers of individual moving objects within a room. It's essentially a radar detector , rather looking for where radar waves are not, and tracking the motion of where the radar waves are being interpreted, and with clever computing, develop an output to show where people or objects are moving within.

If that's not a motion detector then I don't know what is. Are you saying it has to be a PARTICULAR method of squiring data to be a "true" motion detector. Cause now you're just being silly.

Also the HK416 is identical except for two things, piston instead of direct impingement, a slightly different barrel design.

But the Heartbeat Sensor in CoD and the Motion Tracker in Aliens both function in identically the same way, the ping in identical interval to show enemies as a white dot on an arc of a circle. The thing is the CoD one is smaller and lighter, inexplicably.

Again, Tomographic Detectors (that I first read about in New Scientist) function nothing like the devices seen in CoD, utter fantastical fiction.

If CoD can have THAT, why not the stretch of a single female being seen in the Army Rangers?

Maybe you do need more women in the army if rape is that prevalent. The point is friendly fire is a kind of inherent likelihood for how a moments lapse can kill, but it takes incredible pre-meditation and malicious drive to rape and impossible to avoid culpability.

Maybe the military could do with more females for how females rape less. Not at all, but much less.

PS:"You know arguing semantics is a sure sign a person knows their wrong.""Is English your first language? "

Can it, all right.

PS:"You know arguing semantics is a sure sign a person knows their wrong.""Is English your first language? "

Thank you for making my point. It's sooooo wonderful when someone else does the work for you.

Anyway, yet rape IS more common than friendly fire. So what does that say about that. That a premeditated (and not as much as you'd think, unfortunately, if it was always premeditated perhaps more would not go through wit it, time to think, time to reconsider) crime against an ALLY is more common than a snap mistake in the heat of battle. There are MANY reasons why that makes sense but the simplest is, we can train troops not to shoot at each other by mistake, by ensuring proper intel, everyone knowing where other units may or may not be. Even IR tape for night ops have decreased the likelihood of nighttime friendly fire greatly. But you can't train a person not to commit a crime. That's an unfortunate reality of the human mind. At least if we stayed within ethical standards, which in this case, you would. I can tell a male soldier a 1001 times that "No, means no," but that doesn't mean he'll ever believe me. The old say, "Can lead a horse to water," comes to mind. Training to avoid FF however doesn't involve much decision processing. The likelihood of it being a "snap" reaction is low, you don't understand how most engagements, and the distances they take place at, work. You rarely "see" the person your shooting at or shooting at you. Average engagement distance is about 50-60 meters (in a city like Baghdad or Kandahar). At that distance, although close, you can't make out much. But it is far enough that should a friendly unit be there, they will have reported their position, that's how war zones work. Two thirds of my time on my radio was spent reporting mine, or other's, position. You don't "snap" fire at 50 meters. You have to take aim, control one's breathing, watch the shot and follow through carefully. It's not like popping around a corner and firing center mass blindly. That doesn't happen much.

But the Heartbeat Sensor in CoD and the Motion Tracker in Aliens both function in identically the same way, the ping in identical interval to show enemies as a white dot on an arc of a circle. The thing is the CoD one is smaller and lighter, inexplicably.

Again, Tomographic Detectors (that I first read about in New Scientist) function nothing like the devices seen in CoD, utter fantastical fiction.

If CoD can have THAT, why not the stretch of a single female being seen in the Army Rangers?

Are... you serious? Are you mixing up a display output with how a device functions? Now you're showing you don't know how TECHNOLOGY works. How data is acquired by a device and how it translates that data into a display, are two drastically different things. And no, it doesn't function LIKE the ones in COD, as it is searching for a completely different type of data. It can, however DISPLAY AN OUTPUT identical to that in COD.

At this point I cannot help but wonder, are you a troll? Or the densest person on earth?

gamejunkiey69:Hey, i have an idea. How about in stead of FPS's we make some FPS's? First Person Stabbers? I like a game were i'd use a knife to fight some one else with a knife instead of, As yahtzee says "Me shooting at something really far away and me dying alot"

Better yet a first person melee... I like that. Maybe with medieval ranged weapons which can be deflected with skill.

Your description of True Lies doesn't show depth of subtext, it's a back-of-the-box blurb of an action comedy.

Romantic action comedy. Get your genres right. The same description could be used for Mr & Mrs Smith, but it doesn't fly for example in regards to Beverly Hills Cop.

But also take a close look at the movie's casting decisions, and how it goes about updating the conventions of the eighties action film. Naturally Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the lead because Schwarzenegger, but the ubiquitous buddy character has been regulated to minor antagonistic comedic relief in favour of stronger character development of the female lead. Not only isn't there a great deal of age disparity between Schwarzenegger and Curtis, but the film goes so far as to cast a younger, hotter actress as the villain just so Arnie can spurn her advances. Add to that the film was released in 1994, and one can safely assume that the film was designed to be watched by married Baby Boomers.

Burke may have an ulterior motive, but the Marines do NOT! The Colonial marines only went there on the pretext of saving colonists and Burk had to conduct his sample-taking mission in secret with not a single confederate.

Wikipedia: Cameron drew inspiration for the Aliens story from the Vietnam War, a situation in which a technologically superior force was mired in a hostile foreign environment: "Their training and technology are inappropriate for the specifics, and that can be seen as analogous to the inability of superior American firepower to conquer the unseen enemy in Vietnam: a lot of firepower and very little wisdom, and it didn't work." In the story of Aliens the Colonial Marines are hired to protect the business interests of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, corresponding to the belief that corporate interests were the reason that American troops were sent to South Vietnam. The attitude of the Marines was influenced by the Vietnam War; they are portrayed as cocky and confident of their inevitable victory, but when they find themselves facing a less technologically advanced but more determined enemy, the outcome is not what they expect. Source

A lot of US soldiers went to Vietnam without ulterior motives. I recall it didn't do them a helluva load of good either. Again, when the marines are under command of Lieutenant Gorman, who is being led around by the nose by Burke things go badly. The situation only begins to show signs of improvement when Ripley seizes command and goes so far as to put herself in immediate danger to help the marines trying to fight their way out of the hive. When the surviving marines bunker down and go on the defensive, they're noticeably more effective fighters then they were during the initial encounter.

Treblaine:Ripley survives going back as she goes in prepared and much more stealthily, getting in and out ASAP. It seems that most of the aliens had left and are tearing apart the communications centre still and left the Queen relatively unprotected.

Call it for what it is. Plot convenience. By all rights the alien hive should be on high alert and ready to defend their queen from attack. As clearly enough time has passed for the aliens to return home from the communication centre as Newt is there ready to be rescued. Ripley is given a free pass through virtue of her motivation, a personal maternal connection with the child she has taken guardianship of.

Treblaine:If CoD can have THAT, why not the stretch of a single female being seen in the Army Rangers?

Because Call of Duty is based on the "I bet you didn't know we were actually allowed to use this" factor. It's all about the "you'll only find out that this exists WHEN IT'S OUTDATED!" feel.

It IS complete fantasy fiction. The US military can't keep MUCH DARKER secrets as secret, they couldn't keep a fundamental scientific principal as this secret. FYI, most tech that Special Forces use come from private enterprise. The red dot sight that special forces first used in combat they did not invent, private firearms sights manufacturers first made them.

It's quite obvious that CoD developers nicked this idea from Aliens, it even has the same *ping* noise and interval between pings.

But the Heartbeat Sensor in CoD and the Motion Tracker in Aliens both function in identically the same way, the ping in identical interval to show enemies as a white dot on an arc of a circle. The thing is the CoD one is smaller and lighter, inexplicably.

Again, Tomographic Detectors (that I first read about in New Scientist) function nothing like the devices seen in CoD, utter fantastical fiction.

If CoD can have THAT, why not the stretch of a single female being seen in the Army Rangers?

Are... you serious? Are you mixing up a display output with how a device functions? Now you're showing you don't know how TECHNOLOGY works. How data is acquired by a device and how it translates that data into a display, are two drastically different things. And no, it doesn't function LIKE the ones in COD, as it is searching for a completely different type of data. It can, however DISPLAY AN OUTPUT identical to that in COD.

At this point I cannot help but wonder, are you a troll? Or the densest person on earth?

No. I am not mixing them up, you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument to attack it, Straw Man.

"functions identically" is not "mixing up output". You CANNOT just change the output, the technology you talk about CANNOT INFER THAT OUTPUT of detecting discrete humans on the other side of solid walls in a small handheld device that is moved around constantly.

You are out of bounds calling me dense or a troll, moderate your language.

Your description of True Lies doesn't show depth of subtext, it's a back-of-the-box blurb of an action comedy.

Romantic action comedy. Get your genres right. The same description could be used for Mr & Mrs Smith, but it doesn't fly for example in regards to Beverly Hills Cop.

But also take a close look at the movie's casting decisions, and how it goes about updating the conventions of the eighties action film. Naturally Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the lead because Schwarzenegger, but the ubiquitous buddy character has been regulated to minor antagonistic comedic relief in favour of stronger character development of the female lead. Not only isn't there a great deal of age disparity between Schwarzenegger and Curtis, but the film goes so far as to cast a younger, hotter actress as the villain just so Arnie can spurn her advances. Add to that the film was released in 1994, and one can safely assume that the film was designed to be watched by married Baby Boomers.

Burke may have an ulterior motive, but the Marines do NOT! The Colonial marines only went there on the pretext of saving colonists and Burk had to conduct his sample-taking mission in secret with not a single confederate.

Wikipedia: Cameron drew inspiration for the Aliens story from the Vietnam War, a situation in which a technologically superior force was mired in a hostile foreign environment: "Their training and technology are inappropriate for the specifics, and that can be seen as analogous to the inability of superior American firepower to conquer the unseen enemy in Vietnam: a lot of firepower and very little wisdom, and it didn't work." In the story of Aliens the Colonial Marines are hired to protect the business interests of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, corresponding to the belief that corporate interests were the reason that American troops were sent to South Vietnam. The attitude of the Marines was influenced by the Vietnam War; they are portrayed as cocky and confident of their inevitable victory, but when they find themselves facing a less technologically advanced but more determined enemy, the outcome is not what they expect. Source

A lot of US soldiers went to Vietnam without ulterior motives. I recall it didn't do them a helluva load of good either. Again, when the marines are under command of Lieutenant Gorman, who is being led around by the nose by Burke things go badly. The situation only begins to show signs of improvement when Ripley seizes command and goes so far as to put herself in immediate danger to help the marines trying to fight their way out of the hive. When the surviving marines bunker down and go on the defensive, they're noticeably more effective fighters then they were during the initial encounter.

Treblaine:Ripley survives going back as she goes in prepared and much more stealthily, getting in and out ASAP. It seems that most of the aliens had left and are tearing apart the communications centre still and left the Queen relatively unprotected.

Call it for what it is. Plot convenience. By all rights the alien hive should be on high alert and ready to defend their queen from attack. As clearly enough time has passed for the aliens to return home from the communication centre as Newt is there ready to be rescued. Ripley is given a free pass through virtue of her motivation, a personal maternal connection with the child she has taken guardianship of.

Well that's some nice opinions you have there. Just your unsubstantiated and spuriously reasoned opinions.

Not really relevant to why Vasquez is a compromised trivial character or how women can't be in War FPS games.

Ripley takes command because she is competent, the hero, not "because she is maternal". She is anything but maternal, she is matriarchal, a great female leader.

RC1138:I can tell a male soldier a 1001 times that "No, means no," but that doesn't mean he'll ever believe me.

Every single rapist (except those deemed "insane") knows that "no means no" as that is what makes it rape, which is by definition sex against their consent and "no" is obviously stating against their consent. Only people with severely atypical minds rape without knowing they are defying the other person's consent. The problem is they just don't care, or don't care as much as they want to indulge their urge for intercourse.

The trick is getting them to CARE about hurting people, care that they should not do that. A critical lack of empathy is the problem.

Now what were you saying about male soldiers having too much empathy for women?

Treblaine:If CoD can have THAT, why not the stretch of a single female being seen in the Army Rangers?

Because Call of Duty is based on the "I bet you didn't know we were actually allowed to use this" factor. It's all about the "you'll only find out that this exists WHEN IT'S OUTDATED!" feel.

It IS complete fantasy fiction. The US military can't keep MUCH DARKER secrets as secret, they couldn't keep a fundamental scientific principal as this secret. FYI, most tech that Special Forces use come from private enterprise. The red dot sight that special forces first used in combat they did not invent, private firearms sights manufacturers first made them.

It's quite obvious that CoD developers nicked this idea from Aliens, it even has the same *ping* noise and interval between pings.

What the hell are you on about? I never said that the military R&D created every single item they issue.

Nobody cares if it could be a secret or not. It's a game. 12 year old kids won't think about that for longer than 3 seconds!

It's all about the "rule of cool". "OH YEAH WE HAVE SUPER DUPER GIZMOS NORMAL SOLDIERS DON'T HAVE, AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" - this could be an actual quote from the game if Infinity Ward had lost all their sense of subtlety.

And of course the idea of the heartbeat sensor is inspired in Aliens, I am not trying to disprove that!

Again, I don't know how the hell would that ever justify women on combat roles they are not allowed to perform in real life.

Because Call of Duty is based on the "I bet you didn't know we were actually allowed to use this" factor. It's all about the "you'll only find out that this exists WHEN IT'S OUTDATED!" feel.

It IS complete fantasy fiction. The US military can't keep MUCH DARKER secrets as secret, they couldn't keep a fundamental scientific principal as this secret. FYI, most tech that Special Forces use come from private enterprise. The red dot sight that special forces first used in combat they did not invent, private firearms sights manufacturers first made them.

It's quite obvious that CoD developers nicked this idea from Aliens, it even has the same *ping* noise and interval between pings.

What the hell are you on about? I never said that the military R&D created every single item they issue.

Nobody cares if it could be a secret or not. It's a game. 12 year old kids won't think about that for longer than 3 seconds!

It's all about the "rule of cool". "OH YEAH WE HAVE SUPER DUPER GIZMOS NORMAL SOLDIERS DON'T HAVE, AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" - this could be an actual quote from the game if Infinity Ward had lost all their sense of subtlety.

And of course the idea of the heartbeat sensor is inspired in Aliens, I am not trying to disprove that!

Again, I don't know how the hell would that ever justify women on combat roles they are not allowed to perform in real life.

All I'm saying is that if you are OK with CoD being unrealistic for that heartbeat sensor, why not female in the military?

Treblaine:All I'm saying is that if you are OK with CoD being unrealistic for that heartbeat sensor, why not female in the military?

I'm not ok with it. I would actually prefer the Call of Duty 4 style "realistic" plot. I'm tired of seeing Infinity Ward and Treyarch submit an annual entry for the "Who can shove most bullshit" contest.

By the way, Call of Duty could have females. For some reason they only chose to portrait dedicated infantry, because we all know they are the ONLY ones who will ever see combat. That was sarcasm.

Okay, Heartbeat sensors. Still not exactly the same as forcing women to suppress their hormonal cycles and brainwashing soldiers to not be attached to females.

I chose not to care.

EDIT: and I honestly do not understand how playing as your own gender have any importance. I have chosen both genders in all games that allowed me to chose. I don't feel any shame playing Tomb Raider, Metroid or Perfect Dark even if they did not let me chose.

Perhaps the fact that males outnumber females is a decent argument.

Saying that people will be more willing to play the game because of gender is not.

RC1138:I can tell a male soldier a 1001 times that "No, means no," but that doesn't mean he'll ever believe me.

Every single rapist (except those deemed "insane") knows that "no means no" as that is what makes it rape, which is by definition sex against their consent and "no" is obviously stating against their consent. Only people with severely atypical minds rape without knowing they are defying the other person's consent. The problem is they just don't care, or don't care as much as they want to indulge their urge for intercourse.

The trick is getting them to CARE about hurting people, care that they should not do that. A critical lack of empathy is the problem.

Now what were you saying about male soldiers having too much empathy for women?

You really are a moron. Rather, let me rephrase that, you are incredibly immature. The fact you are going to argue with me, a sworn LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, about the motives of RAPISTS... that's not arrogance on my part, that's immaturity on yours. Age has nothing to do with that and who knows if it will change. You remind me of the fresh boot, full of piss and vinegar, ready to JUMP into damn combat, AND ALWAYS the first one to be found cowering in a truck. I imagine you'd argue about the correct ways to deal with pathogens with an Md whose a pathologist. There's no point in even trying to argue with you, as beyond even just trying to convince you otherwise, you don't even argue. You just respond to tone. You never provide facts, just supposition and logic statements, neither of which are particularly well thought out. I'm going to ignore you as there's just no point, you're waste of cache space. You never know what you're talking about and you are the truest form of COD kiddie as you clearly see something from COD and assume you know how it works. Leme guess, you think the AK Beta is a real gun? Or here's another good one, that Red Dot sights (which you are wrong about how and why they were invented) are *new.* You respond to tone and claim straw man, if only I could show you your words in 10 years you'd be as red as an apple. I suspect you have deep, very deep, rooted feelings of inferiority but that's only based on what you've said here. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Be that as it may, you still have much to learn young Skywalker and I will not be your teacher.

This is the last didactic rant I'm going on with you so take it for what it's worth (which in your adol-mind won't be much) but the red dot sight, the colloquial name, is actually called something else in proper designation; the reflex sight. The reflex sight was invented in 19 bloody hundred. 1901 to be precise, by a man named Sir Howard Grubb (also the inventor of the periscope). He invented the red dot reflex sight sight by reflecting an image (the same way ALL reflex sights work, including the classic M68 Aimpoint, I might add, including holographic sights such as an EoTech 552) onto a sight objective. This technology exist, in a WORKABLE, WEAPONS MOUNTABLE FORM, by 1909 and was used by British troops in WWI. Usually mounted on machine guns but there was limited use on sub-machine guns as well. It was invented at the behest (and payment) of the Royal Infantry. That right, the English, and Great Britain in general, can rightfully claim the right to having invented and USED red dot sights for more than a century.

They paid for it, Sir Howard Grubb was working for them. What the wikipedia page DOES NOT SHOW (I know, I checked both Grubb's and relfex sights in general before I wrote this) was that the patent for the reflex sight (it is know as reflex not because of 'snap reflex shooting' but rather it reflects (as in Reflective Sight, shortened to reflex) the image onto the sight objective) was made with the express permission of the Royal Arsenal, specifically that they retained the rights to produce and make sights as needed for the "good of the Empire," as was the, at the time, English catch-all in the vain of the American "For national security." And even if you argue he was a civilian inventing something for use by the military, fine, I'll concede that (even though he was on their payroll) he still wasn't, and I quote from YOUR post:

Treblaine: The red dot sight that special forces first used in combat they did not invent, private firearms sights manufacturers first made them.

He was not a firearms manufacture. He wasn't even a firearm's optics manufacture. He was an inventor through and through, and primarily worked with mirrors and light inventing optics of all sorts (he did incredible work in the field of photography and developing more durable lenses for cameras). He never worked with firearms in of himself in his entire life. He didn't even invent them for use on, specifically, firearms. He invented them to be used for Artillery pieces and ship-board light guns (5 ponders to be precise). It wasn't until the Royal Armory figured that they would work mounted on HMG's and SMG's in WWI (ten years later I might add) that they started ALSO mounting them on firearms rather than Artillery pieces and light cannon.

So once again, you don't know what you're talking about. What did you see reflex and red dot, and holo-sights only in games taking place in post 1980 and assume they are MODERN? Assault rifles are NEWER than that technology. You are an immature person, you will never see validity unless it goes along with your misguided preconceived notions and anything contrary to those have no factual basis or existence in reality as HOW could you be wrong? How could professionals in these respected fields know more than YOU? It is laughable re-reading your posts. Even forgetting who and what I am, just looking at the core information of our two posts, mine contains facts, rather than supposition, yours all boil down to responses in tone, and more often than not, GROSS assumptions about reality. And when that all caves in, you retreat to arguments over syntax and semantics.

Here's a good one (I'll leave *you* with this), do you think the the first Special Operations group was SAS or English Commando? Or even better, do you think the first Assault rifle was invented AND USED in WWII (the STG44/MP44)? Not WWI? You sure? Cause... that's not the truth. The first assault rifles were made and used in combat in WWI. And they were, as the definition demands, TRUE assault rifles; select fire shoulder mounted weapons firing an intermediate cartridge designed for shock troops (close range fighting) and using a detachable box magazine (as opposed to a stripper clip loaded internal magazine).

RC1138:Here's a good one (I'll leave *you* with this), do you think the the first Special Operations group was SAS or English Commando? Or even better, do you think the first Assault rifle was invented AND USED in WWII (the STG44/MP44)? Not WWI? You sure? Cause... that's not the truth. The first assault rifles were made and used in combat in WWI. And they were, as the definition demands, TRUE assault rifles; select fire shoulder mounted weapons firing an intermediate cartridge designed for shock troops (close range fighting) and using a detachable box magazine (as opposed to a stripper clip loaded internal magazine)..

only slightly related to the topic, just a question as a mostly recreational firearm user and enthusiast:

intermediate rounds in ww1 already? i thought the stg44 (and it's goofy beta versions, MKB41 and whatever they were all called) were the first ones to utilize those. (asside from these rare weird russian fedorov things, but if i remember right that thing wasn't shooting a real intermediate round either, just a low power rifle round)

only slightly related to the topic, just a question as a mostly recreational firearm user and enthusiast:

intermediate rounds in ww1 already? i thought the stg44 (and it's goofy beta versions, MKB41 and whatever they were all called) were the first ones to utilize those. (asside from these rare weird russian fedorov things, but if i remember right that thing wasn't shooting a real intermediate round either, just a low power rifle round)

An intermediate round is, by definition, a round with rifle-like ballistics (as opposed to a lengthened pistol round such as a .30 Carbine) but shorter and smaller in size. For example, the 7.62 NATO (AKA .308) is considered a full sized rifle round (capable of putting down targets in excess of 1000 yards). The 5.56 (.223) is based (with minor changes) on that cartridge but has been shortened and thinned. Analogous to the Russian 7.62x54 (full sized rifle round, famously used in the Mosin-Nagant Rifle, or Nuggets, as they are known) and the Russian 7.62x39 (AK-Pattern rifles) and later the 5.45x39 (AK-74 and on). Granted it's the same caliber (7.62x54 and 7.62x39), but that drastic shortening makes DRASTIC terminal ballistic differences (as well as range). This is in contrast to say the aforementioned .30 Carbine round, which is a beefed up pistol round and handles similarly to pistol rounds.

Intermediate cartridges have existed since the late 1800's but most of the advances and concepts done in this realm were in fact done by Imperial Japan. The famous 6.5x50mm Arisaka changed the world of bullets over night. As it retained MUCH of the power, range, and accuracy of the more common 7.62mm's and 8mm's in existence, but with the reduced weight in size, allowed individual soldiers to carry more rounds. It's a win-win. It is a true intermediate as the full sized Japanese rifle round, which remained in service until the end of WWII, was the 7.7×58mm Arisaka, and prior the 6.5x50 was the German 7.92×57mm, most definitely a full sized round. This was, more or less, the first true intermediate round, as a box of thirty of these rounds was significantly easier to hold than a box of 30 .303's. Japan just did not, by no fault of their own mind you, make the next logical step and make an auto-loader rifle. That claim, at least in the sense of a TRUE modern Assault Rifle, remains in the hands of Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov, and his Fedorov Avtomat (literally "Automatic"). The Fedorov is the first true Assault rifle as it is imbued with all the qualities STILL used today to define an assault rifle;Intermediate Cartridge- 6.5x50mm Arisaka (one of the earliest intermediates)Reloaded through removable box magazine- 25 RoundsSelect fire- Safe-Semi-AutoReasonably Light Weight and Short- 4.4kg and about a meter long (M16A2 is 999mm) And of course, it is shoulder fired.

Interestingly it also featured a forward grip, something not seen on assault rifles until well into the later part of the 20th century.

The gun was designed in 1915, more than 30 years before designs of the STG44 began. It was made and used in WWI as well as the famous Winter War.

I actually got a chance to hold one these at Shot Show once (not fire, obviously, as it was almost 100 years old) and it surprisingly light for a wooden weapon and very comfortable to hold. It would, I believe, be functional on a modern battlefield. All the more startling when one considers it was made before there was even a Soviet Union, much less a Nazi Germany.

Amongst other firearms experts and aficionados, there is some dispute whether or not the Fedorov is a true assault rifle (hence debating if it or the Ribeyrolle 1918 which would be the next most likely true first Assaultrifle, again, predating the STG44 as it used an early intermediate round, the 8x35 (I think))Personally, I askribe to saying the Fedorov is the fist, I've held many assault rifles, including it and the MP44, and I can honestly say it *feels* like an assault rifle (as opposed to an automatic rifle/battle rifle in the vain of Garand, Gewehr 43, or SVT-40 Tokareva, all of which feel similar to each other, but nothing like an Assualt rifle like an M16/M4 AKPattern or G36 ect) And my understanding of how it was deployed and used sounds the way an modern Assault squad operates, as opposed to a battle-rifle laden rifle squad.

WWI is a VERY interesting war to study, as much of the technology we associated with today, even just WWII, were in fact invented for and first used in, WWI. A short list includes (but not limited to):Red Dot sights (not electronic, but operated exactly the same with similar results) Chemically Illuminated Telescopic Sights (In the vain of how modern ACOG's work)Assault Rifles, as shownAircraft Carriers (in fact Admiral Beatty was the fist Admiral to use aircraft in a fleet action when trying to engage the German High Seas Fleet (despite being hardcore Army, I find the naval history (rather subtle lackthereof) of WWI to be VERY fascinating)Automatic Rifles, M1918 BAR and the French Chauchat being examplesMonoplanes, were in use in WWIMissiles (as a semi-controlable, either by direct control or programming) were first used in WWI (not Ballistic like V2's or Cruise Missiles like V-1, those operate on Ballistic (Going high and coming down) and Cruise (sailing) principles respectfully)In a *manner* of speaking Kevlar. While by no stretch of the word were they plastic dupont layers of synthetic, they did layer early synthetic fibers into vests to create ballistic protection for soldiers in use in WWI.Flame Throwers (if fact was the fist conflict to use modern flamethrowers)Tanks, but we all know that oneThere have been rumors for now nearly a century, never proved dinitively, but that Germany played with Infared based nightvision technology on the Western Front. We know Germany was the first country to issue NVD's, but that was much later in WWII. But accounts exist describing such devices used by Storm Troopers in the West. Last one of particular interest, individual radio sets, as in non-wired field telephones. Very, and I cannot stress very, limited use by British forces in WWI but they were present and akin to the modern head set.

RC1138:The 5.56 (.223) is based (with minor changes) on that cartridge but has been shortened and thinned.

Huh, .223 Remington and the 5.56 standard were based on the .222 Remington commercial cartridge, which was designed from scratch.

Ever heard people criticizing 5.56 for being a varmint-hunting round? Now you know why.

However your post had a lot of stuff I never had heard about. I knew Sir Howard Grubb's work because of ship guns and planes, but had no idea his projects were used in machine guns and SMGs as far back as WWI. Impressive.

The evolution, as in series, is indeed from the original .222 Remington (regular and magnum) but the measurements and ratios (as well as ballistics) as well as the actual cause for invention was the development of the (then) AR-15 rifle. If I remember correctly, it was originally to be chambered in the .222 Magnum but they found it to lack the power desired for a replacement (rather possible replacement) cartridge for the 7.62 NATO. They instead invented a new one, the .223 Remington, as a natural evolution of the .222's and some alterations based on measurements of the 7.62. So no, it might not be fair to say it is a shortened .308, I suppose a better description would be a hybrid of the 7.62 NATO and the .222 Magnum, size of one, ballistic capability of the other, or at least the hope thereof.

Treblaine:All I'm saying is that if you are OK with CoD being unrealistic for that heartbeat sensor, why not female in the military?

I'm not ok with it. I would actually prefer the Call of Duty 4 style "realistic" plot. I'm tired of seeing Infinity Ward and Treyarch submit an annual entry for the "Who can shove most bullshit" contest.

By the way, Call of Duty could have females. For some reason they only chose to portrait dedicated infantry, because we all know they are the ONLY ones who will ever see combat. That was sarcasm.

Okay, Heartbeat sensors. Still not exactly the same as forcing women to suppress their hormonal cycles and brainwashing soldiers to not be attached to females.

I chose not to care.

EDIT: and I honestly do not understand how playing as your own gender have any importance. I have chosen both genders in all games that allowed me to chose. I don't feel any shame playing Tomb Raider, Metroid or Perfect Dark even if they did not let me chose.

Perhaps the fact that males outnumber females is a decent argument.

Saying that people will be more willing to play the game because of gender is not.

Part in bold I have addressed EXTENSIVELY, it's not like attachment and protectivism would "suddenly be a problem" with females, when the US involvement in Battle of Mogadishu establishes that male heterosexual soldiers will go to every extend and excessive sacrifices to save fellow male heterosexual soldiers and servicemen. To the extent of turning a few casualties into a much larger loss of expensive materiel and lives. Soldiers feel DEEPLY AND PROFOUNDLY the loss of their comrades and have no illusion that it doesn't severely affect them having to leave their male friends to die for operational reasons and they'd only care if it was a female. That is just not how people work.

Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life, Olympics and sport show women are often within 10-5% of performance of men. The military is obviously not that concerned about peak physical fitness in the field otherwise they would never allow such high rates of cigarette smoking in the military throughout its history. Now if you want to talk about physical disadvantage, smoking is a WAY bigger factor than gender.

Smoking in the US Military remains 50% higher than in the general population:

Smith, Elizabeth A. and Ruth E. Malone. "'Everywhere the Soldier Will Be': Wartime Tobacco Promotion in the US Military." American Journal of Public Health 99 (2009): 1595-1602.

You know for an MP you sure are very vitriolic and jump to conclusions far too quickly for my liking.

I was very careful to say "red dot sight" rather than "reflex-sight", which I knew before you told me was over 100 years old in its operating principal. Red Dot Sight works subtly but significantly different from the earliest Reflex sight that needed an arrangement of mirrors to collect light but a small LED light that always gives constant reticule illumination. The first red-dot sights used by the Military were produced from sport-shooting industry.

I didn't say the principal of the Reflex sight, I said specifically the "Red dot sight".

I'd also like a source on Reflex sights being used on submachine guns in The First World War, or at least before WWII.

My source is Aimpoint AB making sights for civilian market long before any military adoption.

PS: I also knew about Avtomat Federov before you told me, why are you lecturing me as if I didn't? It's hardly a significant weapon, only 3'000 were made and there was no further evolution of the design nor interest in the concept for another few decades. Compared to 400'000 Stg44 rifles. I think M1 Carbine was more influential on Assault Rifles (especially for adoption by US military) than the Federov.

RC1138: He invented the red dot reflex sight sight by reflecting an image (the same way ALL reflex sights work, including the classic M68 Aimpoint, I might add, including holographic sights such as an EoTech 552) onto a sight objective. This technology exist, in a WORKABLE, WEAPONS MOUNTABLE FORM, by 1909 and was used by British troops in WWI. Usually mounted on machine guns but there was limited use on sub-machine guns as well.

Are you suggesting that the British used ANY Submachine guns in the First World War? And more than that, that they mounted "Red Dot Sights" on them, no, not "reflector sights" but "Red dot sights" which by definition need an LED light and small battery to work. The LED that was apparently first invented in 1927 in the Soviet Union where it was never put to any practical use as it did not emit in the visual spectrum, not till 1962 an LED emitting in the visual spectrum, not till 1972 an LED of useful brightness.

Red Dot Sight is a type of reflector sight in the same sense a Ford GT is a type of Car, but just because the car existed in 1909 doesn't mean the Ford GT existed and was used in 1909.

Zombie studios is prolly the last place you want to ask about female character balance. The characters might have the same hit boxes, but the female models don't actually fill out the hit boxes. This means that they're not only harder to see and track (people don't aim at hit boxes after all) but there's a distinct visual advantage. When they start clearing a corner, that tiny bit of their hit box that isn't represented by the model is clearing the corner first. This means that they've already started clearing the corner before they're actually visible.

In a game where the time to kill is generally somewhere between .25-.5 seconds, this can provide a distinct advantage when pitting two good players against each other.

Then there's almost negligible visual difference between female heavy and light armor. About the only difference is they have a bit of metal plating on their legs, compared to male character models who get a freaking bomb suit for their heavy armor models and are instantly recognizable as to whether they're wearing a heavy/standard/light build.

Aggh:Zombie studios is prolly the last place you want to ask about female character balance. The characters might have the same hit boxes, but the female models don't actually fill out the hit boxes. This means that they're not only harder to see and track (people don't aim at hit boxes after all) but there's a distinct visual advantage. When they start clearing a corner, that tiny bit of their hit box that isn't represented by the model is clearing the corner first. This means that they've already started clearing the corner before they're actually visible.

This happened in Combat Arms too, I think. There was a distinct advantage for female characters because males had their legs spread apart. There was a huge chunk of hitbox without a visible model filling it on females.

Treblaine:Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

Aggh:Zombie studios is prolly the last place you want to ask about female character balance. The characters might have the same hit boxes, but the female models don't actually fill out the hit boxes. This means that they're not only harder to see and track (people don't aim at hit boxes after all) but there's a distinct visual advantage. When they start clearing a corner, that tiny bit of their hit box that isn't represented by the model is clearing the corner first. This means that they've already started clearing the corner before they're actually visible.

This happened in Combat Arms too, I think. There was a distinct advantage for female characters because males had their legs spread apart. There was a huge chunk of hitbox without a visible model filling it on females.

Treblaine:Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

Treblaine:Hormonal cycles really are trivial to the demands of military life

[troll-attempt removed for taste]

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

You are right, it would be an insult and you have already been insulting, as knowing how the female body work is irrelevant to how close female performance is to males AS DEMONSTRATED.

First of all, I did not insult you.

Second, if you think a reaction video is trolling, you should grow a thicker skin. You're free to edit out a video because it's large, but trying to call me a troll is an Ad Hominem and a very poor defense too.

Not everything in this world is about you. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Treblaine:Why would you have to explain the menstrual cycle when it IS trivial issue? The menstuation cycle does NOT disable women in any significant way, why do I have to explain that to you?

First, tell that to PE teachers in the whole world so that it stops being an excuse.

Second, I never mentioned physical disabilities so please stop with the straw-men right now.

I think it would be an insult to have to explain you how the female body works.

You are right, it would be an insult and you have already been insulting, as knowing how the female body work is irrelevant to how close female performance is to males AS DEMONSTRATED.

First of all, I did not insult you.

Second, if you think a reaction video is trolling, you should grow a thicker skin. You're free to edit out a video because it's large, but trying to call me a troll is an Ad Hominem and a very poor defense too.

Not everything in this world is about you. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Treblaine:Why would you have to explain the menstrual cycle when it IS trivial issue? The menstuation cycle does NOT disable women in any significant way, why do I have to explain that to you?

First, tell that to PE teachers in the whole world so that it stops being an excuse.

Second, I never mentioned physical disabilities so please stop with the straw-men right now.

It was trollish, it was not a video expressing your mere incredulity or disagreement, it was mocking and insulting. That's inflammatory. Here is a non trollish reaction video:

Here is a trollish one:

Now you know the difference, you have no excuse.

See you can tell by putting yourself in the shoes of the person it is directed at and imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end, will it seem like they are expressing their stance or trying to belittle and denigrate?

I did coed sports in school and heard explicitly from every PE teacher in UK that they would not accept any stage of a healthy menstrual cycle as an excuse (much to their embarrassment) and it was not an issue when they did play. The PE teachers who excuse female who are on their period do to out of gratuity, not necessity. Menstruation hasn't been an issue with women in other physically active employment, including the military.

I never said you mentioned "physical disability". You said enough for me to raise the issue of physical disability - where I simply stated the facts - after you insultingly mocked me for stating 'it was trivial to military life' where such duties are most distinct by the physical ability required.

After all, you said you might have to "explain you how the female body works" as if I wouldn't know something as women's menstrual cycle. It seem it is YOU who doesn't understand how it effects women, you mocking laugh at the idea of women in the military because of their menstrual cycle.